British citizens with a .eu domain should buy a dotcom replacement and lawyer up, the UK government has formally advised.
In official guidance put out over the Christmas break, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) warned that "if you currently hold a .eu registration… you should consider transferring …

Re: Wow, it's almost...

Regardless of your views on Brexit, Scottish independence or us joining originally (well, just after we joined the EC), when a Government writes to your house to say they will hold a referendum and will implement the result I would expect them to do so.

The electorate was explicitly told this was a once in a generation vote, and that the outcome will be implemented.

By refusing to do so then every other referendum in the past and the future would be void, the exercise pointless and trust entirely lost from the electorate.

The Government maybe making a dogs dinner of it, it maybe a huge mistake and people may have been misled, but attempting to saying AFTER the vote that it doesn't matter because you disagree is nothing if not undemocratic. The time for that argument was prior to the vote I'm afraid.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

>It does - but one of the decisions can be revisited, the other can't.

You mean like... joining the EEC?

You do realise that when Juncker and Merkel argue for more sovereignty to be transferred to the EU, all they are saying is that people should not be able to elect governments to implement policies which the EU doesn't like. They are literally arguing against democratic government. The only reason to transfer powers to the EU, is to stop local (national) governments from acting in those areas.

Brexit being "economic suicide" is so ridiculously hyperbolic as to bring disrepute on the Remain campaign. Almost as bad as "people didn't know what they were voting for." Personally, I prioritise democracy over profit, not just in terms of the referendum, but also in terms of shunning anti-democratic institutions.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

Re: Wow, it's almost...

In reality, it is far more democratic - the makeup of MEPs is far more reflective of peoples views than the broken british FPTP system.

For example Cornwall

MEP wise, the south west region has 2 Con, 2 UKIP 1 Lab 1 Green - those four parties combined representing just shy of 86% of the votes cast (lib dems got a further 10%, and then the rest split between various fascist parties like ED , BNP, AIfE)

Re: Wow, it's almost...

Re: Wow, it's almost...

"But it isn't [undemocratic] - you have a eu parliament with MEPs voted for by the electorate."

Err, the laws are basically written and implemented by the Commission, not the 99% rubber-stamp Parliament. When did you last get the chance to vote for your Commissioner? Or the President (any of them)?

Re: Wow, it's almost...

The British commissioner is chosen by the British government - by the same logic, when did you last vote for your foreign minister, when did you last vote for your health minister, when did you last vote for your PM?

The President is decided by MEPs - that is the people you do directly vote for.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

No.

The commission is like Whitehall in the UK. They suggest laws and rules and will do all the leg work. But in the case of the EU, they not only have to be ratified by the EU parliament, they also have to be ratified by each member state's government or parliament.

So don't fall for the Daily Mail, anti EU propaganda of an unelected commission writing the laws and rules. Or I will point out how the unelected HMRC is making up it's own laws and rules and is constantly being slapped down in court, when challenged.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

The problem is that until the UK starts taking democracy seriously it is quite hard to make a moral argument for more EU democracy. Unelected autocrats such as Theresa May complaining about EU democracy is like Victor Orban complaining about EU corruption.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

Unelected autocrats such as Theresa May

You do realise that she is an elected MP? And that 'autocrat' is an utter mis-statement? If she were an autocrat, her vision of Brexit would already have been signed, sealed and delivered and she wouldn't be walking the greased tightrope over the shark-tank filled with rabid MP's..

That’s an agenda claiming – and believing they have – a 52% electoral mandate, yet not really representing even the whole of the BNP/UKIP. Give them their isolationism and we can rapidly slip back to poverty, and with less food or energy security than even in the 1970s. Deny it to them and it seems most unlikely they’ll shut up.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

"For those of us who don't live in Maidenhead (and who the **** can afford that?), she's not elected."

By your measure, none of the EU Presidents is "elected" (not even the President of the Euro parliament, who is a MEP) and neither are the EU Commissioners. So why should I consider the legitimacy of those Presidents and Commissioners if you don't accept the legitimacy of our Prime Minister?

Re: Wow, it's almost...

Clearly you haven't understood the EU structure and how laws are written here (hint no your elected UK mp isn't drafting bills either).

You should stop the false claim that the EU isn't demo ratic. And spend some time understanding the facts, not reinforcing hearsay opinions and cherry picking the ones you like. That is subjective reasoning, not objective.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

But not voted PM by the people. Anyone who claims they voted for a PM (or a leader) is repeating a common fallacy.

" If she were an autocrat, her vision of Brexit would already have been signed, sealed and delivered and she wouldn't be walking the greased tightrope over the shark-tank filled with rabid MP's.."

Considering the _actual_ voting percentages vs the way seats went, it's quite clear there's a shitload of gerrymandering going on to ensure that only 2 parties are effectively represented in Parliament and that where possible, one party is favoured. As such it's no wonder electoral turnouts are low when most seats are as locked in as any 17th century rotten borough.

It's even more pointed when the UK's claim to try and introduce a vote on "proportional representation" gave a choice between the status quo and the lame duck _least_ proportional option possible (ie: most resembling the status quo) and as such was rejected even by most who wanted PR.

Compare and contrast with New Zealand's referendum on the same matter:

1: Stay with the current FPTP system or change to PR?

2: If changing to PR, which PR system should we change to? (list of 5)

(Of course when the NZ population voted overwhelmingly for PR and MMP, which the politicians didn't want, they ran it again and got the same result, so it had to be adopted (lots of scare tactic adverts about MMP in the leadup). 20 years later when asking "do you want to keep this?" the politicians got told in no uncertain terms they had to keep it despite trying to switch back to FPTP)

Re: Wow, it's almost...

Vasectomies and Tubal Ligations are not only reversible, the body tends to reverce the surgical procedure all on its own! The body fixes itself. [Not hinting or making a miulti-leveled argument here**, just saying.]

On a Technical note, I think that cutting a person or business from the .eu TLD is bunk. How many US URL Shorteners use TLS from freakin' Everywhere (New York Times gets their NYT.MS from Montserrat) and my vanity domain uses Montenegro's TLD while I'm sitting in Seattle. In short: Who Gives A Shit? I do think that it's petty to boot the legal owners of an Internet Property and a Brand that they (may or may not) have put effort into building.

**I'm an American so I know jack and shit about that game of yours on the other side of the pool, other than you all seem very excited about it. Sorry, we've been trying to keep from drowning in stupidity over here to pay a whole lot of attention, my apologies.]

Re: Wow, it's almost...

Re: That argument goes both ways you know.

Rephrase it as "hardly a decisive outcome to make a major constitutional change". That argument doesn't go both ways. Changes as huge as leaving - or joining - the EU are, as you may have observed, spectacularly expensive and complicated. There should be a higher bar to making such a change than a simple majority. Otherwise we could end up leaving/joining/leaving/joining every time the opinion polls fluctuate above or below 50%. You need some hysteresis in your control loop.

Re: That argument goes both ways you know.

@I am the liquor

"You need some hysteresis in your control loop."

2 general elections and a referendum. The vote is in and so needs to be implemented. And those complaining against it need to accept the result as this is a democracy and their opinion is not worth more than everyone elses.

Re: That argument goes both ways you know.

"And those complaining against it need to accept the result as this is a democracy and their opinion is not worth more than everyone elses."

But *my* "opinion" is real fact and *is* worth more than the paltry few per cent who voted to Brexit.

For more than twelve millennia the global trend has been to create and maintain ever larger, more technologically sophisticated and more complex societies. Small family units, clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, confederations of cities and towns, countries, empires all leading to a global government,

Insisting that "Scotland" is too small a unit to be viable while UKland is perfect an EUland is obnoxiously over-large is petty, insular, backwards and daft.

We should be creating a Greater 'Merca with the southern bits and Canada adding to the bit in the middle. We should be *expanding* the Yurpeen Confedarcy to include Russia and its satellites. We should be making Great Asia. Then we should be merging those three into a global Terran Empire instead of squabbling over petty, trivial little local matters.

One world, one government, one language, (though having a second tongue to use among your friends is fine), one currency. No borders. No passports, currency exchanges or other nonsense.

One policing force.

Local councils, yes, but tiny ones.

*That* is our future, not parochial twitterings like Brexit. Twelve millennia of History back me up.

Re: That argument goes both ways you know.

"But *my* "opinion" is real fact and *is* worth more than the paltry few per cent who voted to Brexit."

And that there is the exact problem. Your 'real fact' is amusingly your opinion. Just because you believe you are right doesnt mean you are (see religions).

"For more than twelve millennia the global trend has been to create and maintain ever larger, more technologically sophisticated and more complex societies. Small family units, clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, confederations of cities and towns, countries, empires all leading to a global government,"

Really? Because that seems very different to history where empires and land grab was the way to increase a kingdoms wealth while now it seems free flow of information, low trade costs and low trade barriers seem to allow items to be made all over the world and cooperation of differing groups seems to work.

The collective or central managed or anything of such seems to have fallen and failed fairly consistently while individuals and small groups have made sweeping changes. The reducing difficulty and increased innovation is allowing smaller and smaller groups of people to achieve their own goals.

"Insisting that "Scotland" is too small a unit to be viable while UKland is perfect an EUland is obnoxiously over-large is petty, insular, backwards and daft."

Scotland is too socialist with their give-aways and governmental interventions that they require money from England to sustain it. If they had got independence (and I was fine with that) they would very quickly have to join the real world.

The Euro is too large, thats just an economic problem with little to argue against it. The problem with the EU is the incompetence and micromanaging from on high. A situation being greatly rejected by the populations of member countries.

"instead of squabbling over petty, trivial little local matters."

Bendy bananas. People who paid for a domain name suddenly losing them without compensation because we hurt the EU's feewings. Call a wambulance. And those petty tossers are the EU.

"One world, one government, one language, (though having a second tongue to use among your friends is fine), one currency. No borders. No passports, currency exchanges or other nonsense."

Which requires nothing to go wrong, everyone to behave perfectly and who would be the great dictator of the terran empire? The Junker idiot claiming something about English will no longer be the primary language of the EU, and having to switch to English so his audience would understand that statement.

"*That* is our future, not parochial twitterings like Brexit. Twelve millennia of History back me up."

You started by claiming your opinion was fact and moved into an amusing terran government of the world (under General Bison?) and end with the amusing and factually incorrect statement of "Twelve millennia of History back me up". Next time use the joke icon.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

"a third had to Google what a banana was and then didn't bother voting."

The rules of the game are, whoever doesn't vote doesn't count. You might not like how it is, but that's how it is. You can't just assume that the non-voters would have voted one way or another.

For the record I am not UK citizen or resident but I think Brexit is a huge mistake both in idea and in execution. BUT ignoring the referendum result because you don't like it isn't how things work in a democracy. You want to stay in, got to have yourselves another referendum

Re: Wow, it's almost...

Rules were dubious though as UK born folk who had been based (home and job) for years in an EU country were not allowed to vote, even though decision affected them massively. Deliberately disenfranchise the group with most experience of the benefits of EU freedoms to live & work anywhere in the EU.

were not allowed to vote, even though decision affected them massively

This. This affects me and my family, which is why I get somewhat impolite every time idiots talk about "the democratic will".

I am a British citizen, and I had no rights to vote in this pathetic shambles. Clearly the British governance learned nothing from The Boston Tea party. Those of us out of the country simply don't count. This whole thing has been quite eye-opening. So Britain can go fuck its "democracy" and I long for a day when I can hand my passport back and cease to call myself British.

Re: were not allowed to vote, even though decision affected them massively

It was the same with the Scottish Independence Referendum. Scots not living in Scotland were not allowed to vote. The SNP thought allowing them to vote would swing the vote against them, which they lost anyway.

Re: were not allowed to vote, even though decision affected them massively

But you are happy to milk the benefits of the EU, now that you are on the other side eh?

I moved before the EU was created, and the only benefits I have are those I work and pay taxes for.

Come back to the UK then, you got your Brexit, live it and contribute to it, for the good you claim it brings. Let an EU citizen get your job.

I'm planning my return, and am delighted that the UK will be out of the EU by the time I get back. As to my job, I work for a US corporation that is so fed up with EU rules that the job probably won't be around for much longer. I certainly won't be replaced here when I leave.

Re: were not allowed to vote, even though decision affected them massively

Re: were not allowed to vote, even though decision affected them massively

There's a lot of it going about I'm afraid.

I personally know of a number of expat brits abroad who voted to leave, one of whom I know for fact at one point was supported in a decent lifestyle by EU hardship and cold weather payments for a number of years, who's sole motivation was it seems to reduce house prices in the UK so he could go back when he was at the point to be completely dependant on the NHS. By and large the majority were not in the systems correctly, registered, didn't pay tax, drove british plated cars with no tax or mot for years way outside the legality and spirit of the arrangements to move vehicles between states and relied on anything but a e1hc card for healthcare at their english speaking only doctor's. The UK should be happy about the prospect of welcoming that bunch of wasters home with open arms along with all the dodgy expat fly by night builders and other flotsam, we'll (the people doing it correctly and contributing to our host country) miss them and their little st Georges flags flying from their car aerials and houses marking their little enclaves, like a hole in the head.

Of course, none of them really thought various aspects through, and are bemoaning loudly about their pets no longer having passports post brexit, have realized they've shot themselves in the foot and are now busy flogging off their now holiday homes because of this.

Meanwhile I WAS eligible to postal vote, and the council responsible fubar'd my postal vote form despite me requesting it on 6 occasions.

I'm with Heyrick, I'm most the way through my own nationalisation and removal of british identity process.

Re: were not allowed to vote, even though decision affected them massively

"David Cameron promised to extend the right to vote to ex-pats beyond the 15-year limit imposed by Tony Bliar, but he never did so."

Why should he? I'm also in this position. I emigrated but I don't then want a say in how the old country operates. It you want to influence the country after 15 years away then bloody well move back. Even 15 years is too long. If you haven't lived there for 15 years you should have no say.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

UK born is irrelevant. If you're based outside the UK then why on earth should you have a say in a country where you do not live? Defense, health, education, national security etc of the UK does not impact on you. It does impact on those that live and work and pay taxes in the country in which they were born.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

You mean like those that might have retired to the Sunshine and have their healthcare managed by the the new host country but their pension and all their documentation managed by their originating country ... that they paid INTO all their working lives, yet take little out (directly) in their latter years? I'd sure as-fu*k be interested in the stupid tax laws our crooked Tories are rustling up that might affect that pension pot I filled throughout my working-in-the-UK years.

Apparently there is ~1m Brits living in the EU long-term, who, many are of the age where health care is an expensive exploit ...maybe they might start heading home to gain access to their TAX-PAID-FOR health service that is the NHS now they are being cut off from both decisions and homeland services.... We have lots of spare geriatric NHS care, and tonnes of empty houses for them dont we?

Anyone who ever studied history, especially the WW2 period, where being German and visiting/resident in another European country became somewhat of a hazard for many - so yes you do have some 'concerns' on the impacts of the stupid you left behind steering the ship. You leave some of the twats we have in the UK voting today to make the decisions, you'll see fascism rise again - and we all know how well that turns out.

Maybe you can suggest, also anyone away on holiday during any election also give away their rights? Or maybe anyone who is asleep cant vote too? Now I knew there was a reason for postal-votes, other than to let the lazy vote...

So even though it has no effect on me, it was a disgrace that those the most affected by the vote-of-a-life-time (you know the one with crooks financing it, telling lies like no tomorrow) were excluded .... it was like deciding if gay-marriage should be allowed, but excluding anyone who was gay from voting.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

"their TAX-PAID-FOR health service that is the NHS "

But they aren't paying for it. Your taxes fund your right to health care while you live in the country and you continue to pay tax, in one form or another (VAT) for as long as you are there. Claiming the benefit of the NHS after you've been decades out of the country is like damaging your car and expecting a previous insurance company to pay out because you paid them premiums years ago. Can you just move back into a house you once paid rent on?

The idea is ludicrous. Take it to its logical extreme: if everyone paid in for twenty years and then buggered off for 30 years but came back when they needed the NHS, it would collapse through lack of resources. No one would have paid adequate amounts of tax.

The only ex-pats who should be able to vote or use the NHS are those who continue to contribute substantial amounts of tax while living abroad.

And I'm excluding myself from the vote or NHS because I am one of those ex-pats. I don't pay into Britain, haven't for years, and even though I paid tax for 30 years, I should have no say on how it is run NOW, and no access to the NHS NOW, because I haven't contributed for years!

Re: Wow, it's almost...

"If you're based outside the UK then why on earth should you have a say in a country where you do not live?"

Um? Because it directly affects my rights, opportunities, and abilities as a soon to be non-European legal citizen of the United Kingdom?

Look at it the other way around. Why should a bunch of people holding a referendum in an entirely different country have the right to inflict such a profound change on my life without me even having a say in the matter?

Face reality. I'm not a citizen of France or Europe, I'm a citizen of Britain. This should come with a number of opportunities and privileges such as the ability to vote regardless of where I happen to be (like every other civilised nation). Instead it's been three years of "you don't exist" followed by two and a half years of "fuck you". Contrary to what the Murdoch media and Mail have been reporting, the EU has been repeatedly asking the UK to guarantee citizen's rights, and the UK has continually found reasons not to. We're literally weeks away from the end point now and this shameful excuse of a government still hasn't managed to actually do that. And no, a press release from May doesn't count unless it is reflected in ratified policy, but I think by now it's quite clear that May is living in some sort of alternative reality.

"Defense, health, education, national security etc of the UK does not impact on you. It does impact on those that live and work and pay taxes in the country in which they were born."

That's quite right. Britain won't have to pay for my health coverage, it doesn't even contribute to my complimentary coverage (it isn't 100% here). They wouldn't have to pay to educate my children (if I had any). Nor do I claim any UK benefits, top ups, or whatever. Your rates and taxes don't pay to empty my bins, and you don't need to worry about the army taking the time to defend me. I don't tie up your doctors, nor do I take a bed in your hospitals. But Britain will sure as hell be happy to tax UK source income, savings, etc etc.

Indeed I'm not even certain what will happen to the money I make over here post Brexit. Will the tax agreements remain reciprocal or will the UK switch to an American style tax system to try to make up for its self inflicted losses?

Re: Wow, it's almost...

Indeed I'm not even certain what will happen

An yet that doesn't stop people commenting on how bad it will be.

Will the tax agreements remain reciprocal

Given that the agreements on things like tax, pension rights, passports, driving licences, etc. all predate the EU and are governed by worldwide treaties that are not part of the EU, there is no reason to expect them to change.

This is what so many people don't understand about the EU. There is a huge difference between things which the EU enables (like freedom to work elsewhere in the EU without needing to ask permission) and the many things which it simply requires, such as having a reciprocal tax agreement between member countries. These agreements are outside the EU framework, the EU just says "if you're a member, you need a reciprocal agreement on 'xxx' with other members". That agreement exists whether or not a country remains a member, unless it is separately changed, and I can't see the UK deciding to, say, break away from the 1949 Treaty of Vienna (to take one example) just because it's leaving the wholly-unrelated EU.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

"Look at it the other way around. Why should a bunch of people holding a referendum in an entirely different country have the right to inflict such a profound change on my life without me even having a say in the matter?"

Re: Wow, it's almost...

"BUT ignoring the referendum result because you don't like it isn't how things work in a democracy."

Of course it is. Some people seem to have a very odd idea of what democracy actually means. Every single democratic country in the world is a representative democracy, in which a small number of people are chosen to actually make decisions. Direct democracy, in which the people as a whole vote on all decisions, is essentially non-existent. Even Switzerland, which is well known as having a lot of binding referendums, actually still runs on representative democracy most of the time, and the few other examples around the world are mostly for minor local matters not for entire countries.

In systems like the one we use in the UK, referendums are rarely binding. They're essentially little more than an opinion poll that happens to be run by the government rather than a polling company. The whole point of having elected representatives is that they are supposed to make a considered decision based on all the facts available; a public referendum might help inform that decision, but it is far from the only relevant factor. To claim that a non-binding opinion poll being overridden by an elected government is undemocratic is just plain nonsense.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

Agree entirely!

It has always been the case that Joe public never gets given the information necessary to make an informed decision, because parliament and their lackeys are the all-knowing, fully informed professionals, that make the decisions on our behalf.

We, for our part, read the newspapers and watch TV and every 5 years go out and cast our vote the way Rupert Murdoch told us to. And yes we vote in some absolute shower of shite nearly every time.

It seems the whole nation has been fit up as a collective rotten borough, with money buying sufficient influence to get the outcome marketeers have been craving for.

And I say marketeers, because it will be the ones who bankrolled Leave, who will make a killing in the markets, doubling and trebling their worth as the upheaval unravels.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

It's the idea that losers are not allowed to have a discussion without some triumphant winner barging in waving there ignorance about the place, and demanding everyone in disagreement shut the fuck up!

To quote Stewart Lee - "It's wrong to generalise about the people who voted for Brexit. It wasn't just racists who voted to leave. It was cunts too!"

Re: Wow, it's almost...

An individual politician can choose to be bound or not bound by a non-binding referendum.

What they can't do is make it binding on anyone else or binding on parliament, at that time, or on any later parliament. We live in a representative democracy, whether you like it or not.

MPs are not delegates sent to do the bidding of stupid people who happen to be alive now. They have a duty to serve the national interest, and to honour the sacrifices of past generations and the interests of future generations.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

"MPs are not delegates sent to do the bidding of stupid people who happen to be alive now. They have a duty to serve the national interest, and to honour the sacrifices of past generations and the interests of future generations."

For anyone not fully versed in the traditions of British Parliamentary Democracy, Edmund Burke's speech on the matter is considered a seminal text.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

Much as I'd like a do-over, I have to agree with you and the downvoters are just trying to deny reality, I think.

However, if there was solid evidence of Russian involvement in influencing the result (such as I believe happened in the USA where there is what looks to me like concrete proof) rather than just wishy-washy Labour Remain support and blatant falsehoods from idiots like Farange and Boris I could get behind a legal challenge, but what happens if a re-vote resulted in Remain? Should the Brexiteers be entitled to a best-of-three re-re-do?

Re: Wow, it's almost...

but what happens if a re-vote resulted in Remain? Should the Brexiteers be entitled to a best-of-three re-re-do?

That's one of the three fundamental problems with another referendum.

Lets say remain win. All the guarantees is another vote later. It would be impossible not to go to at least a best of three situation.

Lets say Leave won again. Now what? What did the referendum part 2 achieve other than loss of trust and faith from the elctorate. We'd be where we are now. So what is remainers plan for that eventuality? Do we then accept the deal or do we leave without one? And why not just do whatever that is with the result we already have? Further, given the carping about the majority Leave won by, any sensible proposal for another referendum would have to set a hurdle of say 2/3rds of voters in order to change course - that course being leaving the EU in March 2019. A simple one vote majority won't dfo because remainers refused to accept it.

The third problem is that a once in a lifetime referendum cannot be refought a few short years later. Scots IndyRef is a done deal. Leaving the EU is also a done deal. The people decided. The losing side carping that the winning side didn't know what they were voting for, when the exact opposite is the case, is not remotely sufficient to throw democracy under a bus. Almost all remainers I know are preparing to vote leave in any re-run because they understand that there oculd never be democratic legitimacy for anything else.

Staying in, whether via another referendum or by simply stealing Brexit, is a unicorn that needs to be slaughtered. ALL our focus now needs to be on how we leave - which deal is actually better no deal, or May's deal. Given the attempts to annex NI and Gibraltar that the deal brings to the fore, my view is we should leave with no deal and negotiate a trade deal thereafter.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

There are more than enough people (including leavers) who will tell you very loudly that leaving without a deal will be disastrous.

Whilst I agree that we're generally heading to a no deal brexit with far too much speed, that a second referendum is not an immediately reasonable idea, and that if it is run it has to have a notable majority in order to be seen as valid neither do I agree a no deal is the best option or that it's a foregone conclusion.

'Once in lifetime' deals never are. Democracy can change things, and the reason Brexit is causing so much strife is because the vote is so close. This will happen repeatedly, whatever the result, until public opinion shifts far enough that the minority side are no longer news.

The only reason Scots IndyRef isn't resurfacing is because the SNP know there isn't yet enough public support. When Brexit worsens things for Scotland, expect that to change rapidly.

What *should* happen (have happened two years ago) is an extension to the transition period, and a government of national unity to sort brexit out properly. However, the general populace voted overwhelmingly against AV two referenda ago, so that's out.

So, we'll probably extend the transition period a bit, then either end up in something suspiciously close to Mrs May's deal/a customs union member without power, and bump along like that for years before deciding to go back into the EU.

I just see this whole thing as in incredible display of hubris, that as a country we seriously think our farty little island can really negotiate a better deal than at present. New deals will mean compromises, and many of the conditions won't be to the country's benefit.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

There are more than enough people (including leavers) who will tell you very loudly that leaving without a deal will be disastrous.

Yes, there are, but almost all of those people simply don't understand international finance or trade. That's why they have the view they have. Ignorance, in a word.

Trade won't stop because we leave without a deal, which is what most of the idocracy believe. Trade deals follow trade, not the other way around. You can still get your Coke, McDonalds & Levi's, and yet we've no deal with America.

I just see this whole thing as in incredible display of hubris, that as a country we seriously think our farty little island can really negotiate a better deal than at present

We could and should have got a much better deal. Unfortuantely, sending someone to negotiate leaving the EU who is afraid of leaving the EU, was never going to produce a good deal.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

"that as a country we seriously think our farty little island can really negotiate a better deal than at present."

The entire delusion of Brexit was that of those who still believe- or would have others believe- that Britain (and the rest of the world) is still in much the same position that it was in the days of Empire- that it had the ability to unilaterally dictate what it wanted and to expect to get it.

It's been said of such people that what they are really after- and think they still have- is the right (and ability) they once had to Command.

It's such thinking that has led to the mentality that the EU was going to have to roll over and give Britain what it wanted, that any refusal would be worse for them than it was for the UK. That any trade agreement with the US would be one of equals. And so on, and on.

All this is bullshit, and has been obviously so since Britain's decline first hit the fan at the time of the Suez Crisis over sixty years ago.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

Hmm are referendums democratic?

Democracy is about representative government.

Referendums arguably move the decision making away from representatives to people.

A representative (assuming they were voted in for qualities of leadership) would be arguably making decisions that are unlikely to be assuaged by knee jerk fear, lies and would be in a better position to balance the pros and cons out.

A referendum perhaps makes sense to change how the representative government itself is chosen - I get the first past the post vote being a referendum.

This I do not get. For something that is so complex in how it affects so many areas in direct and indirect ways, how can the question be posed to the general public?

What is populist is not always the right or correct thing - there is a difference between the two.

Would you have the decision for your medical treatment put out to a referendum? No you would at best put out the choice of the doctor to a referendum.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

That's not an unreasonable viewpoint, LOL123, but unfortunately we are where we are and can't turn back the clock.

This is also the reason a no deal brexit is causing so many issues - because a large number of people can see the disaster it will cause, and once we're out, there's no quick undo button.

(Course, if the transition period is extended, we'll have to hold elections for our MEPs. Obviously this will happen, as the last two years have already been a complete farce. If that happens, oh fuck, we're going to see the case of UKIP trying to put forward MEPs, aren't we?)

Re: Wow, it's almost...

A transition period is in many ways even worse than a hard brexit.

All the companies have to assume we are going to have a hard brexit.. and that means moving many HQ functions to the continent. So it may not matter at the end if we have Brexit or not, we got that huge, long term, economic damage, as the well paid jobs will follow the HQs.

Then we have new investment. Investing in the UK right now is quite expensive, as you have a risk scenario.

So whatever we do, we should do as quick as possible.

As for democratic or not.. this is the very definition of UNdemocratic.

You see, democracy should not be the tyranny of the majority, supposedly it is the will of the majority, but with a consensus and considering minorities.

If the vote proved anything, is that we have no consensus. We are divided, so it is no wonder that the MPs cant agree, it was to be expected!

Re: Wow, it's almost...

Yes I agree democracy is the will of the majority, with a consensus and considering minorities. That's precisely why a no deal Brexit is a terrible idea.

At the moment there is uncertainty and insufficient time to put suitable systems in place to cope with a hard Brexit, regardless of your opinion on leave/remain (this isn't a matter for debate : suitable systems to cope with customs properly etc will not be ready in time).

We have disagreements with the government and pharmaceutical companies about the necessity of stockpiling drugs, and not all drugs can be stockpiled. Without agreements people will die.

The only sensible courses of action are to extend the transition period or effectively remain in the customs union (either actually or by guaranteeing legislative parity for a defined period) until such deals are in place that there will be no dramatic fallout. That doesn't necessary mean the new deals will be more beneficial than the old ones, but it might at least guarantee the effects will not be sudden.

The systems, supply chain, and legislation in place are incredibly complex. Doing it right is more important than doing it quickly.

Personally I think that if we leave we'll still have long term damage that will take decades to fix, but the first priority is to limit immediate, possibly catastrophic damage.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

I'd predict there may be a fudge to prevent this. Of course, UKIP, SNP, and probably the liberals will object to this, but the former are a bunch of useless bigots, the LDs are a bunch of useless position switchers desperate for power, and the SNP aren't sufficient to sway the two party system.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

UKIP will put forward a list for MEPs and will in all likelyhood gain a third of the UK seats again

Given that UKIP have finally finished their trnsformation into the BNP, and have become too racist even for Nigel Farage, with dwindling membership and / or support, I find it much more likley that those who voted for UKIP MEPs will go back to the average UK citizen's default position of just not bothering to turn out to vote in Euro elections. Lack of engagement with EU politics goes back further than the brief history of one right-wing single-issue political party, and is fed largely by apathy from our own government, press, and populace.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

Unelected autocrats such as Theresa May

Theresa May was elected, by her Maidenhead constituents.

When the UK public vote in a general election they vote for their MP. We don't vote for a Prime Minister, that is the position awarded to a person nominated and elected by the MPs that we elected. I would hate to see a system where people pay £3 to be allowed to vote for a leader.

And a PM without a majority party in government can hardly be an autocrat.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

We don't vote for a Prime Minister, that is the position awarded to a person nominated and elected by the MPs that we elected. I would hate to see a system where people pay £3 to be allowed to vote for a leader.

That's not true, the PM is typically the leader of the majority party in parliament. In both of the largest parties, the final decision on the leader is taken by the party membership. I understand that it costs a lot more than £3 to be a member of the Conservative party. Or was that your point? Only the wealthier should choose?

Re: Wow, it's almost...

Re: Wow, it's almost...

Democracy is about representative government

Err.. no. *Representative" Democray is that - democracy per-se is about 'rule by the people' ('demos' being the Greek work for people..).

In Ancient Greek that was done by having large meeting of all the free citizens (ie - adult non-slave males who were citizens of that city - no women, foreigners or slave allowed) where a direct vote would be taken.

Since that's pretty much impossible for anything bigger than an Ancient Greek city, representative democracy was born where those eligible to vote elect others to represent them on the premise that those elected would accurately reflect the wishes and opinions of those electing them.

Then political parties were invented and it became more important to reflect that the party wanted than the direct wishes of those who elected you. So we get to the current absurd situation where MP's from areas that voted Remain are still required to reflect the wishes of their party/faction leader rather than the wishes of the electorate in their constituency. I'd have a *lot* more respect for MPs if they grew a backbone and tried that, rather than blindly followed the party whips in the hope that they'll move up the ranks.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

Re: Wow, it's almost...

"Democracy is about representative government"

Not correct.

Representative government is (if implemented correctly) a form of democracy, but Democracy does not require representative government.

A society where every decision is resolved by ballot of all members of that society is a non-representative democracy, and in fact a truer democracy, since every member of that society gets to express their own specific view on every decision.

In practice, such a system seems impractical for any but the smallest groupings, hence representative democracy is generally accepted as the most practical solution.

In a representative (parliamentary) democracy, parliament is sovereign because it wields sovereign power (the 'parliamentary' bit of parliamentary democracy), but the sovereign power comes from the people, not the representatives (the 'democracy' bit).

If a parliament composed of the peoples' representatives is ever stupid enough to ask the people a direct question, then they cease to be representatives and, for that issue only, become ciphers, with no authority to exercise sovereign power other than as instructed by the people from whom that power originates.

Re: are referendums democratic?

Switzerland has LOTS of referendums, hence women only getting full vote and the Country joining the UN at the END of the twentieth century. Yet their government can ditch a referendum result without "going back to the people" if it's deemed to be inherently stupid or impossible. See recent backtracking on EU free movement.

Also the "Free Movement" is really only about EU citizens, a small percentage of those coming to UK. The UK also gave MORE rights to EU people coming to UK with no job than needed and most other EU Countries. Also has been unable to tackle non-EU immigration. Except "low hanging fruit" with the toxic Home Office procedures that even break UK laws that are nothing to do with the EU.

The whole "EU free movement" is a red herring. The real issue is Offshore banking and money laundering, greater banking controls & transparency. To stop so called "legal" tax evasion and criminal activities. Decided on in 2016 and now law since January 2019. Cayman Is. Bahamas, Gibraltar, Isle of Man, Channel Is (e.g. Jersey) all are non-compliant. Norway, Switzerland, Ireland & Luxembourg are. Singapore, Panama and other territories not connected to UK are ion track to be compliant. It's also an OECD thing.

The City of London generates very little wealth. It, the UK Overseas/Crown Colonies/Dependencies are parasites siphoning off money out of the UK and other countries. That's why Apple and Eircom have moved from Dublin to Jersey.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

Lets say remain win. All the guarantees is another vote later. It would be impossible not to go to at least a best of three situation.

Complete rubbish! The first vote was on an aspiration. We have now negotiated the best deal we can get and now we know the terms which apply if we go ahead with leaving.

Our negotiations included playing the "ooh, if you don't give us a good deal we will leave without a deal and that will cost the German car industry a lot of business" card -- that is the reason the deal is as good as it is. The negotiation has happened, the only alternative now to accepting the negotiated deal is not to leave after all.

The second referendum will be on whether we want to leave on those terms or withdraw our resignation. There will be no question of a third referendum -- there is nothing to ask.

If Remain win the second referendum, Brexiters can try again in another generation if they want. But not before.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

@Graham Cobb

"We have now negotiated the best deal we can get and now we know the terms which apply if we go ahead with leaving."

Well that doesnt work. Assuming remain is the best outcome (which it isnt, 3 votes against so far) and Mays deal is considered worse than hard brexit we have a simple answer. We voted leave so remain is not an option, why choose a crap deal by a snivelling remainer and instead choose the leave option remaining- hard brexit.

If remain want to try to rejoin they can try to do it democratically and will have to accept the penalties of joining the EU (not rejoining, not some punishment by the EU, but the costs of surrendering the country to the EU).

Why do the remainers not argue to rejoin? Why is that option so desperately avoided? Why dont remainers want us to ditch the opt outs and half arsed membership of the EU and instead argue to join it proper? Leavers already know the answer, and I suspect remainers know too.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

@Rol

"Allowing the collective us to dictate the nations direction in a single poorly informed vote is just plain madness."

Then surely its madness to listen to the sore losers throwing toys out of the pram for not getting their way? To start with its 3 votes not 1. 1 GE for a referendum, 1 referendum with a clear result based on the rules of the referendum with a huge turnout, 1 GE where the only major party for remain was almost wiped out. Thats 3 votes for change, 2 for definitive leave.

So why should the country be ignored and the result dismissed? Because you lost?

Re: Wow, it's almost...

Seeing as the present referendum needs to be voided due to interference & criminality, Remain is the status quo it should remain so in case of a new vote. However if in an unbiased referendum without interference & criminality leave won a supermajority of at least 60% of the vote, I would accept it. I would be cheesed & would not stop campaigning for a reentry to the EU, but I would accept that vote.

The problem with this referendum is even without the interference & criminality, 51.7% is by any sane standards, & the government & EU's guidelines for the referendums far too small a majority for a major decision that will change the political, economic & social landscape for a generation.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

However if in an unbiased referendum without interference & criminality leave won a supermajority of at least 60% of the vote, I would accept it.

If only we'd had one of those in 1991 when John Major signed us up to Maastricht to create the EU. But he didn't, because he knew he'd lose. Even the French, great Europhiles, only accepted that by 51%. If we'd had an EEC-wide referendum, with a supermajority required, to create the EU it would never have happened, and we wouldn't be in this mess.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

@Not That Andrew

If the 2014 Scottish independance vote had gone the other way (it was 55% stay / 45% leave) the SNP would have demanded the vote be implemented. I wouldn't rate your chances if you'd gone to St.Georges square and said 'No you need 60% to leave'.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

51.7% is by any sane standards, & the government & EU's guidelines for the referendums far too small a majority for a major decision that will change the political, economic & social landscape for a generation.

And yet getting 51% (on 69.7% turnout) in a referendum was perfectly OK for France to agree to create the EU in the first place.

You can't have it both ways. If 51% is enough for "in", you can't reasonably claim that 52% is insufficient for "out".

Re: Wow, it's almost...

>but what happens if a re-vote resulted in Remain? Should the Brexiteers be entitled to a best-of-three re-re-do?

They can have another referendum against a specific, scrutinized plan to Leave, that accurately lists all the aspects of the proposed plan. With independently agreed costings, analysis and an itemized schedule of how the program will work and the short-, medium- and long-term benefits, costs and consequences.

If we learn one thing it should be to never do anything on such a vague nebulous concept again, where the goalposts can be moved and mean something different for every single voter.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

That is at least part of the problem there - here we are, 2.5 years after the referendum and no-one can agree on what leaving the EU actually means. We can't even agree what to do with Northern Ireland, let alone what kind of trade, fisheries or agricultural deals we want to have with the rest of the EU. Parliament is split between remain, hard brexit and some kind of deal in the middle and no-one is budging. The general terms of leaving should have been agreed BEFORE the referendum, not 3 months before the end of the article 50 term.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

The electorate was explicitly told this was a once in a generation vote, and that the outcome will be implemented.

But they weren't told that at least one of the campaigns was breaking the law: perhaps both sides were, which makes it even worse. They also weren't told that agents of at least one foreign power were fucking with the referendum.

Now all that has come to light it's clear the result of the referendum is not valid. The proper thing to do is to hold another, with extremely careful scrutiny of the behaviour of the campaigns and extremely careful checks that foreign intervention is not taking place.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

Re: Wow, it's almost...

When a Government writes to your house to say they will hold a referendum and will implement the result I would expect them to do so.

You might expect that. Given who the government was at the time (In case you had forgotten it was a government formed by a Tory majority with David Cameron in charge), you'd be naive to belive anything they said.

This is, however, beside the point. Ther are a couple of things to note here:

- A government can promise whatever they like, unless it is backed by a act of parliament it is nothing more than hot air. In this case, it was backed by an act of parliament that explicitly stated the opposite - that is that the referendum would be non-binding. That act of parliament trumps rhetoric, sorry about that.

- By convention a political party sets out promises in their manifesto and carries them out. Cameron promised that they would hold a referendum and carry out the result. Again, manifesto promises are nothing more than hot air. See the current government for multiple exaples of broken manifesto promises.

- A government has no power to set the policy or constrain any future government. Parliament is sovereign (yes, there's that word, this time used properly).

- In case you hadn't noticed, the guy who made these promises promptly resigned. As Danny Dyer put it, "he's off in Nice with his trotters up".

- The person who took over then went and promised to implement the result, said she wouldn't hold an election, then held an election in order to try and strengthen her position against manifesto promises to implement the result of the referendum. She lost her majority, so in effect got no mandate to do so. She is now in the position where only her (arguably misguided) self belief and stubbornness is carrying her forward.

Meanwhile, polling shows that most of the country wants a re-do, having found out about the electoral fraud and dodgy campaigning techniques used by the leave campaigns, and having now seen that what was promised isn't what they're going to get, because that magical land of "exact same benefits" rainbow-shitting unicorns not only doesn't exist, but isn't internally logically consistent or possible in any way.

The fundamental problem with referenda, especially ones that boil down a complex issue to a binary choice, is that they are incompatible with a representative democracy. One is basically a coin-flip biased towards whoever can shout the loudest; the other is a group of elected representatives who are supposed to weigh up all the complex issues and make decisions based on the best interests of their constituents, and the country as a whole. In case you have forgotten your history, the former were used to great effect in Germany in the 1930s to deconstruct a democratic state and put a fascist dictatorship in power, which is why refrenda are now nmot only not used, but actually illegal there. Maybe it's time to take a page from Germany's book and have a bit of electoral reform - ban referenda, ditch teh result from this obviously bent one, and reform the FPTP system so that parliament is more representative, then if people still want to leave the EU, they can vote in a UKIP government. Because that would more accurately reflect the "will of the people". My prediction, however, is that if this were to happen, we would end up with a parliament with MPs from many more parties, no overall majority for any party, and a House where the Government is formed from a coalition that approximates the population as a whole, rather than a bunch of Eton old boys who studied PPE at Oxford.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

The big "issue" with P.R. that is that you can end up with either No government because they cannot get a majority or no decisions being made because no-one can get anything passed in Parliment.

Note: I am not saying this is entiely a bad thing but when you see how many PR goverments stagger from one coalition to another with little real goverment being done it does not really give me a lot of hope.,

Re: Wow, it's almost...

>The big "issue" with P.R. that is that you can end up with either No government because they cannot get a majority or no decisions being made because no-one can get anything passed in Parliment.

Good, that means no-one can fuck things up, just let the country bumble along - no-one gets to try and implement massive projects that are either doomed to fail from the outset (ID cards) or just plain not needed (HS2) until they can actually get a good concensus from everyone as to the cost/benefit of those projects means for the country.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

The big "issue" with P.R. that is that you can end up with either No government because they cannot get a majority or no decisions being made because no-one can get anything passed in Parliment.

I'd say that was a feature, not a bug. In general, if nobody can agree to pass a law, it probably mans that it's a law that doesn't need passing. You'll find that in countries led by "rainbow coalitions", the decisions that are actually important usually get passed, often after sensible compromise, and the ideologically led pogroms, like those of recent Tory governments, don't. Win-Win.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

Careful, your class snobbery is showing. 51% of current MPs went to a comprehensive school.

I'm not disputing that, I'm talking about the Government - i.e. the smallish number of MPs from the (usually majority, but in this case minority) party that are led by the leader of that party. How many of Theres May's cabinet went to comprehensive schools? Because I'm willing to bet it's not representative of parliament as a whole, and even less representative of the country as a whole.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

Re: Wow, it's almost...

>A one million two hundred thousand difference is hardly an indecisive result.

Statistically, it is insignificant, given the population size...

The problem isn't the result so much as what the Conservatives decided it meant, namely an overwhelming majority supporting their particular brand of Brexit; which might not be so bad if only they could agree on just what their brand of Brexit is and then communicate it to everyone else...

The (ironic) laugh about Brexit is that whilst there are several ways to leave on the 29th (eg. no deal), on the 1st April we have to sit down with those "Johnny Foreigners" and start talking about trade etc. Given it seems that where Trump goes the Conservatives follow, we can expect leading Brexiteers to do an about face and claim that they never said all those nasty things about the EU and that in fact the EU are really nice and would they kindly give us a favourable trade deal in double quick time...

Re: "Statistically, it is insignificant, given the population size..."

>Please show your workings and assumptions.

Read practically any manual about opinion polling, which the referendum was, and you will find that the result falls in the "noise and polling inaccuracy" category.

However, that doesn't mean that the result should simply be disregarded, as it may be indicating some underlying factors. The problem is that the government (and others) decided to simply take the headline result and not do any further investigation.

Re: "Statistically, it is insignificant, given the population size..."

>you need to back it up with actual statistical analysis

I gave you a pointer and left the leg work to you; admittedly in the full knowledge that ardent Brexiteers don't do leg work :)

>otherwise it is just another way of whining it did not go your way.

You assume too much; given the nature of the beast, my opinion has been from the outset: the root cause of the Uk's perceived problems with the EU are to be found in Westminster (something N.Farage and I agree on) and the best way to leave (the EU) is to remain. Current events in Westminster only serve to reinforce that viewpoint...

Re: "Statistically, it is insignificant, given the population size..."

Statistics does not work that way. As with all science the point is you prove your case, showing how you came to the conclusion, you don't hide and obfuscate your assumptions so no one else can duplicate/test your results.

For example: If HADCRU hadn't made such a pigs ear of the climate change data and actually logged how the data had been treat or how the models had been refined perhaps there would be fewer climate deniers or arguments over whether the data had been "massaged" to give the consensus, but I digress.

"the root cause of the Uk's perceived problems with the EU are to be found in Westminster (something N.Farage and I agree on)"

That I agree with. UKgov, of both blue and red persuasions, has used the EU as an excuse to ignore the wishes of the electorate (Sorry it's the EU, our hands are tied!) so when they eventually gave the public the choice, of course there was an up swell for leave. The EUs behaviour in respect of the Ireland referendum didn't do it any favours either.

I think a proportion of the leavers is down to giving parliament a slap for not actually representing the interests of the constituents.

Personally, I think the EU will collapse in on itself within 10 years and do not want to be under the rubble when it falls, Italy's populists, the yellow vests in France, Germany's far right, they are all signs we need to get out from under this edifice before it is too late.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

Re: Wow, it's almost...

@Velv

Not voting is accepting the choice of the electorate who did get off their backside to vote.

Using the non-vote=status-quo argument is complete BS, under that principle we'd never have a change of government, only 1 or 2 MPs would change at every election (at most), deceased MPs wouldn't be replaced unless 50%+ of the local electorate voted for a new one.

Re: Wow, it's almost...

This is what 52% (the majority) of the UK voted for so

.. when they did not have the true facts, but stuff that was written on busses, for instance.

I would have supported a vote where the population based their vote on true facts, but the data that was presented to them was about as bogus as an £11 note. Ergo, NOT a true representation of the voter's opinion.

Don't worry, it's only money

But more fundamentally, UK citizens represent a significant proportion of .eu domain holders – 273,000 domains making up 10 per cent of the registry – and that means that the EU will be actively undercutting its own revenues.

Since when has the EU given any thought to how much its bureaucracy costs the member states? (If they did, the farce of the monthly decamp from Brussels to Strasbourg would have been abolished decades ago.)

Barnier needs to be reminded that he is just a civil servant not a head of state nor working for one. His remit should be merely to minimise the impact on the EU not impose 'penalties' on the UK.

The UK government's decision to recommend dotcom domains ahead of its own .uk domains has also raised eyebrows. Almost as if civil servants don't understand anything about the internet.

To be fair, if you do significant business in the EU then a .com might be slightly more familiar to your customers than a .uk. Odds are that you either have the domain already or it's taken so a bit irrelevant either way.

Does anybody actually use a .eu ?

Having the fourth most common English surname and what I think may have been the most popular boys' given name when I was born, I couldn't get a reasonable .uk domain name, so I went for .eu.

It wasn't a political statement in 2007, but now it is.

Fortunately I have friends and colleagues in proper European countries who are willing to re-register it for me.

Generally speaking I have fully supported what the EU side has been doing over brexit, but this is a piece of gratuitous nastiness. It doesn't seem to have occurred to the bureaucrats in question that British people with .eu domain names are likely to be pro-European and in no way responsible for this catastrophe.

Re: Does anybody actually use a .eu ?

It looks to me like you don't need to actually transfer ownership of the domain. You only need to change the address given in the registry to one in the EU. I suppose ideally that would be the address of someone you knew, but then again I can't think that the physical address has ever been used in the administration of my .eu account

Re: Does anybody actually use a .eu ?

> Let's see the EU unpick that one.

Perhaps there should be a hard internet border - all packets exiting/entering the UK & NI need to be opened and inspected for contraband.

No doubt the govmt will organise a feasibility study involving sending 100 packets to Cork, but offload them onto a USB stick for 5 mins before sending them across the border and then pronounce the proposed solution (which is?) perfectly fit for purpose after a local greengrocer wins a £xbn contract to supply extra cross border traffic with a pair of grey-market Netgear routers he's bidding for on eBay

Re: Does anybody actually use a .eu ?

Does anybody *not in the EU* get to use a .eu? No! So what exactly is the story here?

You may like the Daily Mail narrative of us and them, but UK politicians and bureaucrats have been involved in drafting, negotiating and approving every single thing that has come out of the EU since the 1970's. That is how the EU works and until you understand that you will never understand why the rest of Europe is looking at you in despair and disgust. You started divorce proceedings so you could find a better fuck elsewhere, so do not act surprised when the EU refuses to give you a 'quicky for old times sake'.

Re: Does anybody actually use a .eu ?

what the EU side has been doing over brexit

The EU has decided to give the worst possible deal to the UK so that there's no other country that wants to leave. Also UK has never been fully in the EU, just taking what they wanted, so they can GTFO.

Re: Does anybody actually use a .eu ?

Failing to remember this isn't the deal the UK will have to live with. It's the one while you do real negotiation with a EU doesn't have it's hands tied. You think you did badly in the withdrawal deal? You're going to be apoplectic in the future relationship negotiation, where the EU have no time table to worry about and no treaty obligation to you.

The EU have been vocal that they don't like this transition deal, it gives undeserved cake to the UK and they don't trust you to leave the cake shop. They tolerated it only because it would end in a few years, there's not much interest left in giving you any deal if you continue wasting time.

Re: Don't worry, it's only money

Re: Don't worry, it's only money

Since when has the EU given any thought to how much its bureaucracy costs the member states?

More to the point, it looks strongly like "the EU" (or at least, certain high ranking people) are keen to make life as hard as possible for the UK regardless of the cost to the EU. If we leave without it being very visible painful for us then it opens the floodgates for other countries to leave. And lets be realistic, there are other countries that would be better off out of it.

Re: Don't worry, it's only money

"If we leave without it being very visible painful for us then it opens the floodgates for other countries to leave. And lets be realistic, there are other countries that would be better off out of it"

I think one of the problems with the EU is that it's very real benefits founded on lasting peace and on freedom of movement of goods, services and people has become so intrinsic and basic to Europe a to be taken for granted. These are not some small fringe benefits, they are major drivers of the prosperity of Western Europe. People arguing for their country to leave the EU either do not understand how much benefits they are getting from the EU, or are willfully ignoring them in favour of straw bogeymen they have built up.

Anti-EU advocates in many nations talk a lot of bollocks about sovereignty and immigration, but you know what? The sovereignty of your parliamentary representatives is already bought and paid for by corporate lobbyists. The EU on the other hand has shown itself much more willing than individual national parliaments to stand up to corporate bullying. You want more sovereignty? Then push for the EU powers to be passed from the unelected EU commission to the elected EU parliament. Leaving won't solve anything.

And regarding immigration, do you think that being out of the EU will change (a) the need for foreign workers in countries where the population of natives is dwindling and aging (which is all the countries in the EU!) or (b) the fact that refugees from Africa, Syria etc continue to see the European countries as havens whether in or out of the EU? Immigration needs to be better managed but is not going to be stopped, short of surrounding Europe with barbed wire and machine guns

Re: Don't worry, it's only money

I think one of the problems with the EU is that it's very real benefits founded on lasting peace

The peace was the result of the post-war economic stabilty of the common market, allowing neighbours to trade together while building trust. Ever since it was converted into the EU there has been a steady rise in nationalism and populism, to the point where the EU is becoming a leading cause of conflict (cf the Brexit arguments) within European countries. Free trade brings peace, empire-building politicians do not.

Immigration needs to be better managed but is not going to be stopped, short of surrounding Europe with barbed wire and machine guns

Very true, which is why immigration itself is not relevant to the debate.

What is relevant is the control of it, and controlling it on an EU-wide basis clearly isn't working. The Dublin agreement is largely ignored, the weaker countries can't police their own borders. The centralized solution is to attempt to manage the uncontrolled flow it by issuing quotas by diktat, which simply adds to the internal conflicts. Migration needs to be tackled at source, before people leave their homes, not after arrival in Europe when it's too late.

The UK is, and always has been, largely welcoming to true immigrants and asylum seekers. It's one of the most welcoming countries in Europe, and should continue to be so post-Brexit, but that has to be on its own terms.

Re: Don't worry, it's only money

Phil, I agree on most of that....

"Free trade brings peace, empire-building politicians do not."

Yes, which is why I suggest one of the ways to 'fix' EU is more powers to parliament rather than commission. The major strength of the EU is in simplifying day-to-day living and business (ie economic rather than political integration). The grand plans to make a Europe-wide superstate are as stupid now as they were in the time of Napoleon.

"Migration needs to be tackled at source, before people leave their homes, not after arrival in Europe when it's too late"

Unfortunately not too much that the EU as a whole or any European country can do about that one. A lot of African / middle eastern countries are in a mess. This can't be forcibly fixed from the outside (vide Iraq, Libya etc) and can't be fixed by foreign aid that is easy for corrupt regimes to appropriate and/or is tied to strings attached such as use for buying stuff (including weapons) from the 'donating' country*. Also a lot of people are fleeing famine related to climate change that has to be tackled on a global basis and anyway won't have any quick fixes.

So in any case there will be a flow of refugees, and the EU needs to be able to welcome them humanely and integrate them as productive and contributive elements of society. Ghettoisation doesn't work. Racism is a big problem in this respect. For example there are huge Italian communities in Germany from migrant workers in the 50s and 60s but they are now 2nd or 3rd generation integrated and white. The Turks in Germany who arrived around the same time and in the same numbers are still treated much more as outsiders.

*Incidentally, this is really a form of state aid to their local businesses that the EU should step in to stop

Re: Don't worry, it's only money

Yes, which is why I suggest one of the ways to 'fix' EU is more powers to parliament rather than commission.

You have more faith in that toothless parliament than I do. The monthly Strasbourg-Brussels charade shows how powerless it is to take any difficult decisions. By all means take the powers from the commision, but don't give them to EU politicians, give them back to national parliaments who have a direct stake in the outcome.

The major strength of the EU is in simplifying day-to-day living and business (ie economic rather than political integration). The grand plans to make a Europe-wide superstate are as stupid now as they were in the time of Napoleon.

True, but try convincing Macron etc. of that.

Unfortunately not too much that the EU as a whole or any European country can do about that one. A lot of African / middle eastern countries are in a mess

Also true, but a mess of Europe's making, thanks to the likes of Tony Bliar. Governments are happy enough to charge in and remove unwanted dictators, if they applied the same level of money & committment to deal with the gangs of people smugglers they could make good inroads into the migrant problem at source. Unfortunately a war is always more appealing to politicians than police action, it tends to be over before the next election.

So in any case there will be a flow of refugees, and the EU needs to be able to welcome them humanely and integrate them as productive and contributive elements of society.

Absolutely, but there's a need to differentiate between genuine refugees, and those economic migrants who have an unrealistic idea of a "promised land" where they can make more money that they can at home. Some of them may be welcome, if they can genuinely be productive in their new society, but in most cases it would be better for both countries if they stayed at home and worked to improve their home countries, instead of chasing some imaginary El Dorado where the reality is that they'll end up in shanty towns, no better off than before.

Re: "the weaker countries can't police their own borders"

"And most of them are from ex-British colonies, pieces of the "Empire".... good job, Britons... we are collecting the pieces of your disaster."

Maybe its only a disaster now they are not part of the Empire? Yes the Empire was founded on invading other countries, but then again so was most of the world... The USA/Australia/South America all are ran mostly by the invaders...

Re: Don't worry, it's only money

"It's one of the most welcoming countries in Europe". WTF, did you read that in the Daily Mail?

No, because I prefer facts to red-top bigotry.

The UK comes second (behind Germany) in the percentage of asylum requests accepted. It consistently scores well above the EU average in opinion polls asking if immigrants are welcome. In my personal experience it is far less institutionally racist than France, to take just one example.

Re: Don't worry, it's only money

I think one of the problems with the EU is that it's very real benefits founded on lasting peace and on freedom of movement of goods, services and people has become so intrinsic and basic to Europe a to be taken for granted.

Maybe less benefit for UK citizens/subjects of her majesty/inmates of the overpriced island cul-de-sac.

Popping over to a neighbouring EU country has never seen the benefit that it has on mainland Europe, and I am not certain that lack of benefit is down to the mere geographic boundary, but certainly a provincial island mentality that leads the government to want to rifle through your overnight bag for the sheer hell of it as you pass the border, freedom of movement or no.

Re: Don't worry, it's only money

oh please! The EUcrats and the rest of their folk have had enough and just want the Brits to get the fuck out, enough of our ridiculous huffing and puffing for more than the last couple of years. Get out, throw away the key, don't come back, ever.

p.s. not that I support EU federalist drive, nosir, but the Brits seriously need to get a slap to wake up, its 2018, and Britannia is long past longer rulling the waves, or anything else for that matter. So, let's just drive this last nail and be done with it.

Re: Don't worry, it's only money

> It is brexiteers who need reminding he's just a civil servant and has no individual power.

He has a lot of power because he has been appointed to negotiate the terms of the UK's withdrawal from the EU on behalf of the other members.

It's hard to see how allowing existing .eu registrations to remain would have any negative impact whatsoever on the EU. Conversely, it is easy to see how ending those registrations would have a negative impact on the UK businesses and individuals that hold them. This is a clear example where Barnier is exceeding his remit, as a civil servant, to only consider the impact to the EU.

Re: Don't worry, it's only money

>This is a clear example where Barnier is exceeding his remit, as a civil servant, to only consider the impact to the EU.

I see nutter Brexiteer logic at work here!

Barnier's remit is to only consider the impact on the EU.

Additionally, due to history you will find that many in the EU are less willing to 'bend' the previously agreed rules - thus if the rules (agreed by all Eu28 members remember) say that only Dot-EU domains can be bought or renewed by organizations or people located inside the EU then that is the rule that should/must be implemented.

Interestingly, I note the UK government - in typical Westminster pass the buck fashion, isn't directly saying who should be sued, given it is Westminster who have created the mess, I suggest it is actually the UK government who should be the target of any legal action...

Re: Don't worry, it's only money (@ DeeCee)

Re: Don't worry, it's only money

he has been appointed to negotiate the terms of the UK's withdrawal

... along the lines approved by the other 27 EU countries. It's pointless agreeing an agreement if he can't get it approved by all the EU counties because just one saying 'non/nein/nyet' will scupper the whole thing..

Our "ridiculous" Queen

Re: Our "ridiculous" Queen

"The alternatives are vastly worse" ... sitting here in the US and watching the brexit mess, I'm starting to thing that we've got a strong and stable government compared to you brits - it's quite a nice feeling because initially I thought trump was the worlds biggest idiot. Now I just see him as our idiot, you brits have an entire government full of idiots.

Re: Our "ridiculous" Queen

Sitting here in the US and watching the wall/government shutdown, I'm starting to think many of the UK government are trying to make an impossible situation work, while the US government is trying to make a working situation impossible.

Re: Don't worry, it's only money

Re: Don't worry, it's only money

Not just Cornwall.

See a really nice Dartmoor house? An affordable £250k, probably because it needs work, like installing modern electrics and connecting to water mains, not to mention general refurbishment for (if nothing bad turns up) a large six-digit builders bill.

Look at the smallprint. That £250k isn't the house, it's a lease that expires in 2026, after which you pony up all over again for up to a 20 year maximum. Could that be why noone has put in the investment to modernise? Oh, and you're also paying £7k/year rent, which will also have to be renegotiated when the term is up.

Re: Don't worry, it's only money

Considering the Royals bring in more than they cost...

Funny how when I saw that, my immediate thought was that there's another group of people who bring in more to the country than they cost. Can you guess who they are? I'll give you a clue; most quitlings really hate them.

Re: Don't worry, it's only money

Have you given any thought on how much cost your ridiculous queen and her family?

Absolutely nothing. The Crown Estate provides ~ £330m income to the treasury each year, of which only £82m is paid to back the Royal household as a grant. We actually make a substantial profit from them, even before you consider intangibles like tourist income.

Re: Don't worry, it's only money

Re: Don't worry, it's only money

The Crown actually own the whole country. Crown estates are the directly managed bit, the rest has been granted to others for favours given. William I conquered the whole of England and handed out the lordship of land (landlord) to his followers (first county system).

1,000 years of history haven't really changed the underlying ownership except to entrench the convention of not arbitrarily reclaiming land.

Re: Don't worry, it's only money

Yes, and your logic is fine right up until the Civil War, at which point we find that King Oliver the First conquers the whole country and gives it to *his* cronies instead.

Which is again fine, up until the twentieth century where we find that would-be-King Adolf *fails* to conquer the country only because of defeat by ... well pretty much every man, woman and child in the country, at which point it presumably belongs to them "by right of conquest". Of course, like all conquerors, they've mostly (by now) passed it on to their descendants.

The other great change in the last 950 years is that we've noticed that while "right of conquest" is an excellent (because indisputable) mechanism for deciding who has power, it is a pretty crap method of deciding what to do with that power, so for the past few centuries it has been traditional to delegate that bit to our servants. However, if the servants are going to make *quite* such a pigs ear of it, perhaps that policy needs to be revisited.

Re: Don't worry, it's only money

Imposing penalties on the UK makes sense ... idea is to discourage other states from leaving when they see how nasty the outcome is. Perfectly logical long term tactics, a bit of short term financial hit for the EU is worthwhile in the long game.

Given the rabid anti EU content of a lot of the UK media over the years ("Up yours Delors" etc.) and abuse from lots of UK politicians who (bar the odd ultra virtuous paragon of moral perfection) could blame some EU bods for twisting the knife when the opportunity arises as most of us are fallible grudge bearing humans despite our efforts to rise above petty revenge.

Re: Well... F.Uk!

Needs a local agent

Just like the old "Sark Lark", someone with an EU address could take over these domains and for a modest fee keep them in existence. A few Euros per domain per annum shouldn't be too onerous for companies, and a nice little earner for whoever is doing it.

Re: Needs a local agent

Re: Needs a local agent

No doubt some enterprising people will set themselves up to do that and charge double the registration costs for their trouble. Other enterprising people will set themselves up to do that and rely on companies that don't read contracts carefully and have their domains held for ransom, with costs escalating yearly and the implied threat that they will sell your domain to your competition if you don't pony up.

Re: Needs a local agent

No need for even that.. the Benelux has a ..Career.. in letterbox companies perfectly suited for this kind of thing. It's trivial in cost and effort for a company to set up a subsidiary solely for the purpose of a redirection web address if you have to comply with "local presence" rules.

For private citizens... Nothing stops you from transferring/buying a dot-EU at one of the cheapo EU website hosters that hold your registration for you. Could go as low as 20 euro a year for a minimum package, and if you're just redirecting there's no way you'd run out of allotted bandwidth.

"In short, it's a bad deal for everyone"

Re: "In short, it's a bad deal for everyone"

Devils advocate but I don't see how staying in is a good deal for everyone.

The EU has never been properly audited, which is the basics it should be aiming for in terms of fiscal accountability. The organisation has been trundling along for decades without an audit.

Throwing money at something we there is no real accountability for where that money goes doesn't seem like a great deal and both Brexit and Remain seem to do that. Which is worse long term is frankly impossible to say.

Re: "In short, it's a bad deal for everyone"

What are you going to try to pretend is true next? Bendy bananas are illegal? The enitre population of Turkey is moving here? Jean-Claude Juncker is going to conscript you into an EU army and invade Kent? Tsk.

FAO cheese-eaters & surrender monkeys

Apart from wondering why anyone would want a .eu domain, just another example of bad-faith and spite from Brussels. Thankfully they can stick their poxy domain where the packets don’t route on 29th March.

Re: FAO cheese-eaters & surrender monkeys

The EU28 (which included the UK) created the legislation that specifically stated that .EU domains could only be owned by entities within the EU. We voted to leave the EU, and when we leave, we will no longer be in the EU (Leave means Leave, remember?) and therefore we will no longer be allowed to use .EU domains. No bad faith. No spite. Just following the rules that WE helped to create.

Civil servants are confused

… Examples of other top level domains include .com, .co.uk, .net or .org."

.co.uk is a second-level domain not a TLD. They also might have suggested 2nd level domains of our ccTLD to UK domain holders such as .org.uk as being more appropriate.

Anyway, pleased to see the government evidently know what they're doing and I feel sure Brexit is going to be a remarkable success....which of course is absolutely nothing to do with why I'm leaving the country.

Re: How long until the new referendum will be called?

Re: How long until the new referendum will be called?

Of course they will. They've spent two years telling the rest of us 'You lost -- suck it up!' so if there's another referendum and they lose that then they'd be hypocrites to do other than accept the consequences. They can campaign for yet another referendum, of course -- that's democracy.

Re: How long until the new referendum will be called?

'... They can campaign for yet another referendum, of course -- that's democracy. '

Hate to tell you this ..... BUT that is anything but democracy.

Our political system does NOT support 'campaigning' for a referendum.

It is a delusion of the 'people who are BETTER than the leave voters' that you just keep complaining until you get what you want and then you call it democracy.

Once again a thread has been highjacked to roll out all the same opinions and statements that because of 'X Y Z reasons' the original result is invalid and it should be ignored.

What you really mean is ..... I do not like the result so change it somehow so I can get the result 'I' want.

Any action that changes the result even if disguised as another referendum will demonstrate there is NO DEMOCRACY in the UK.

Such a pity that all this effort is spent on trying to overturn the original result and 0% effort spent on getting the best result possible seeing that the Govt has been obliged, by its own words, to follow the result of the referendum 'IT' organised and ran.

When we have a General Election and 'I' do not like the result I am expecting all the Remainers to support my efforts to change the result because I know better and my opinion is 'better' than yours !!!

Not only do we have politicians that are 'worthless' but the a large part of the electorate have got what they so clearly deserve with their selfish 'me 1st' attitudes, namely a set so called representatives who place Party before Country and only care about the voters *when* their votes are valuable to them.

Re: How long until the new referendum will be called?

Re: How long until the new referendum will be called?

Why does everyone assume that calls for a 2nd referendum are calls to run the same referendum for a 2nd time? That would be crazy...

I think the sensible people asking for another referendum are asking for one that really seeks to establish what people want. One problem with the last referendum was that it was a simple in/out decision but failed to capture what people wanted the future to look like, given that there are a million permutations of both in and out. Ever since, we've heard politicians spouting endlessly that "the British people voted for <blah>" when of course they can't possibly know, and nor can I, and nor can you.

I know it is difficult to capture nuance like that in a referendum, and it would probably require some kind of "list of outcomes in order of preference". But, as we've seen, it is also difficult for politicians to arrive at a consensus given the lack of concrete information about what people actually thought they were voting for.

By the way, when Brexiteers like Liam Fox dismiss a 2nd referendum by saying "people like me would then ask for best-of-3" he is being disingenuous. He knows that nobody seriously wants a repeat of the same referendum but chooses to speak as if that's what people are asking for because it's so easy to dismiss.

Re: How long until the new referendum will be called?

I think the sensible people asking for another referendum are asking for one that really seeks to establish what people wan

But realistically you can't do that, because there would only be one possible "remain" option, the one decided by the EU which controls the terms of membership, yet multiple ways to leave. Give people a choice between, say, three types of "leave" and one of "remain" then obviously the "remain" option would get the highest number of votes, even if the total for the leave options still exceeded it. For many people I suspect that "kill off the EU, go back to the EEC" would be a preferred option, but clearly that isn't a choice that can be realistically offered by one country alone.

Re: How long until the new referendum will be called?

"The black and white stay/go option was the only viable one."

Go in what way?

You just argued there were multiple leave options and not everyone who voted leave wanted the same thing. In fact, I doubt many had even considered the consequences; it was a non-binding vote and many took it as a general protest vote. Now there are realistically only a couple of leave options: the one negotiated with the EU by such Leave politicians who were prepared to take on the job, let's note, or the jump off the cliff option. The consequences of either are a good deal more obvious than they were back then including, of course, the consequence that this time it's for real.

Given that there are really only a couple of leave options available to vote for then a second preference vote works fairly well.

Re: How long until the new referendum will be called?

You just argued there were multiple leave options and not everyone who voted leave wanted the same thing. In fact, I doubt many had even considered the consequences; it was a non-binding vote and many took it as a general protest vote

I honestly doubt that, given the celebrations after it and the immediate collapse of UKIP which was then seen as "job done, now irrelevant". Those who voted leave did so because they wanted to leave, and I suspect most expected that leave to be basically "no deal" with some minor clarifications, followed after departure with new trade negotiations. The suggestion of a pre-leave divorce bill etc. certainly didn't go down well.

the one negotiated with the EU by such Leave politicians who were prepared to take on the job, let's note

Well, no. The Leave politicians weren't allowed to negotiate anything, they were overruled by remainers like May who forced them to either resign or negotiate an agreement that is essentially worse than either "remain" or "no deal".

"Given that there are really only a couple of leave options available to vote for then a second preference vote works fairly well."

Re: How long until the new referendum will be called?

Have an STV (single transferable vote) referendum, with options of remain, no deal, and May's deal.

Of course that would be the third referendum on membership of Europe, the first being in 1975 which the Brexiter's have never respected, because if they did there would not have been a referendum in 2016.

Hey Farage two days before the result said that if it was close (at which point he expected to loose) said it would be unfinished business and he would campaign for another referendum. Then as soon as the result was in his favour it everyone had to respect the result and calls for another referendum where "undemocratic".

Re: How long until the new referendum will be called?

The 1975 referendum was on membership of the EEC; the EEC changed into the EC and then the EU; the rights and obligations of the UK under the EU are substantially different to what was created by joining the EEC. It is therefore dishonest to suggest that the 2016 referendum was a 'repeat' of the 1975 referendum.

I do not recall there being any substantial call for a referendum on the UK's membership of the EEC after the result of the 1975 referendum (but admittedly, I was a bit young, so probably wouldn't have noticed it).

So in fact, the 'Brexiteers' did respect the result of the 1975 referendum, which the 'remainers' won.'Remainers' that then refused to allow any other direct consultation of the UKs membership of the EC/EU for 41 years.

Re: How long until the new referendum will be called?

'Remainers' that then refused to allow any other direct consultation of the UKs membership of the EC/EU for 41 years.

There wasn't anything like a national movement looking for a new referendum for most of that time, not even during Major's Maastricht troubles. Sir Jammy Fishpaste's Referendum Party wasn't founded until 1994 and promptly fell apart after Goldsmith failed to get elected in 1997. It took UKIP a dozen more years to gain any sort of impact (except within the racist, nutter and fruitcake sector of society, of course), and even then they never managed to get their leader elected to Parliament.

There was little to refuse until Cameron got scared about a handful of defections from the Bastard Wing of his party and stupidly gave in to his fears. And now look where we are. Still, never mind. It's keeping Putin happy.

Re: How long until the new referendum will be called?

To be fair, there have been UKIP-ancestors longer than that. The National Front in the 1970s and the BNP since the 1980s campaigned for out, and their exclusion from all debate has probably fuelled some of the vitriol that now drives brexit.

What changed for UKIP (apart from deep-pocketed Establishment backing) was an era of white immigration, that helped a slick publicity machine separate an anti-immigration agenda from cries of racism that could've silenced them. Ironically they're basically right: anti-immigration and anti-immigrant are not the same, though there was ample overlap to see off the UKIP predecessors.

Re: How long until the new referendum will be called?

Unfortunately, there is no point to call it now.

The root cause is not BrExit related. The people discussing the second referendum (most of which are middle class) FAIL to understand populism. The way populism works is by delivering its agenda as a stream of shit punctuated by specifically selected pieces of truth in key locations. Joe Average Citizen sees the pieces of truth and happily consumes the stream in between.

That would not be an issue if the opposing narrative was run from a truth perspective. The problem is that it is not. Plain and simple. At some point during Tony Bliar's rule we swapped places with Brezhnev and Suslov and the centrist narrative which also happened to be the government one ended up as an endless stream of lies(*). These are supported via an orchestrated social media campaigns and "influencers" on government payroll (same as it used to be in USSR).

Changing it to truth at present is not going to work either as people are conditioned that it is a stream of lies and treat it as "expert opinions", "f*ck business", etc.

It will take a combination of a very rude awakening with nothing in the shops and no salary/benefit checks combined with the powers that be actually SWITCHING the narrative back from Brezhnev/Suslov mode to a truth based one for things to change. Prior to that it is pointless to do it and let's hope we survive to the point where it can be done.

(*)I already went through the Crimea "Blockade" as one example of such "lies at scale" narrative. It's not the only one. Pretty much anything significant in the last 2 years foreign-policy wise has proven to be in the same category - where the prime minister dons asbestos knickers and proudly quacks while bottom is trying to conflagrate.

Re: It will take a combination of a very rude awakening with nothing in the shops

I'm afraid you're totally wrong, if shit hits the fan big time (now it's in a gentle sprinkle mode) people will not blame themselves for casting their vote, nosir. They'll keep blaming the EU, who want to punish us,humiliate us, the frenchies, the krauts (but of course). And this natural human tendency to blame everybody else will be sustained by (no need to be subtle) politicians. Never mind long term prospects for the country, I'm being elected NOW!!!

Re: How long until the new referendum will be called?

My worst fear is a fudge that means we fake being in the EU for another decade while the nastiness steadily increases until we have a civil war on our hands.

While the logical option is to revoke Article 50 as soon as possible, I fear the only political option left is hard Brexit. Which will be seriously unpleasant. However, looking on the positive side, benefits might be:

(a) the death of the Tory party

(b) a re-working of our whole political system to better suit modern-day communication methods.

(c) the people of this country coming together and helping each other, for basic survival needs.

(d) the country learning that voting is a serious business, and that facts and expert opinion matter so much more than vague promises and obvious lies.

Re: How long until the new referendum will be called?

(a) the death of the Tory party

Yes, but what do you think will replace it? Something kinder and gentler and pleasingly fuzzy around the edges, like a Sunday morning sermon delivered by a young Anglican vicar in his first parish who doesn't want to upset the flower ladies?

"Yes, but what do you think will replace it?"

Re: How long until the new referendum will be called?

"Democracy should be let to do its job."

But unfortunately it already has done its job and people voted to leave. So if we don't honour what those people wanted, then we're not being democratic. The people that didn't vote, it's their own fault.

It may end up not being as bad as it's being made out (I have no idea, I voted remain). My point is, the EU has to make it look like it's going to be shit and that it's a very bad idea otherwise other countries like France will also want to leave.

Re: How long until the new referendum will be called?

Re: How long until the new referendum will be called?

So if we don't honour what those people wanted, then we're not being democratic.

The great thing about democracy is that we're allowed to change our minds. Maybe you think it's wrong that every few years some nutter gets on his hind legs in Parliament and calls for a return of the death penalty or the end of abortion, but personally I get great comfort both from him losing that motion by a factor of ten and from him being allowed to make that speech.

Re: How long until the new referendum will be called?

@Rich 11

"The great thing about democracy is that we're allowed to change our minds."

And there will be proof of democracy if we leave. Because we have been in the EU, realised we dont like it that much, had a general election for the chance of change via referendum, a referendum and general election to continue with brexit.

So we have changed our minds, we want out, time to prove democracy by the losers not being sore about it, nor betraying it.

Re: And of course owners of .eu domains are probably more likely to be Europhiles.

Re: And of course owners of .eu domains are probably more likely to be Europhiles.

BUT THE MEMBER STATES CAN CHANGE THE GODDAMN RULES!!! The EU member states (and Brexiteers) need to grow up and realize that come "Brexit Day +1", they will still be neighbors. They will still face many of the same mutual challenges. They will still be natural markets for eachother's goods and services. They will still have large numbers of eachother's citizens in their territories.

I'm fine with Britain pushing on with Brexit. I'm fine with Britain "Remain-ing". What I do not understand and am not fine with is this mindless "Well, you're not part of our polity anymore, so we are going to go out of our way to tweak or piss on you because you hurt our precious feelings."

Re: And of course owners of .eu domains are probably more likely to be Europhiles.

I'm fine with Britain pushing on with Brexit. I'm fine with Britain "Remain-ing". What I do not understand and am not fine with is this mindless "Well, you're not part of our polity anymore, so we are going to go out of our way to tweak or piss on you because you hurt our precious feelings."

It's all too understandable. It comes down to "If we don't piss on you and make your life hell our other members might get the idea that they can leave too, and then we wouldn't be in control any more". It's not about hurt feelings, but reduced power.

Re: And of course owners of .eu domains are probably more likely to be Europhiles.

Re: And of course owners of .eu domains are probably more likely to be Europhiles.

Because this particular organization might one day relocate back into the EU. And because people with .eu domains probably tend to be advocates for the EU who happened to be outvoted on referendum day.

A new low

So we have finally found politicians that make Congresscritters look ethical and intelligent; a real low point. As Congresscritters have long been known as 'America's Native Criminal Class' and for 'subtracting from the sum total of human knowledge when they speak' (Mark Twain and Czar Reed) to sink to lows below that dubious level takes real effort.

Re: A new low

Re: A new low

For a good example, look at Agrippa Menenius Lanatus, 494BC - he lured the plebs into thinking that it was right they worked while the patricians didn't and took all the benefits... had they throw him down the Tarpeian Rock instead, the world could have been different... but the real issue is how many are gullible.

industry practice?

I'm curious what the author of this article means by the following paragraph from the article (emphasis mine):

And even if there is a deal, it remains highly likely that .eu domains owned by UK citizens will be forcibly shuttered after Euro bureaucrats surprised everyone last year by announcing they would go against long-standing industry practice and actively remove .eu domains – and related websites – from the registry if they had been registered by UK citizens.

What is the scope of industry in industry practice?

Is it limited to the .eu domain industry, or are you referring to worldwide domain industry practice?

I ask because, if it is the latter, then that paragraph (and a later one that uses the same terminology) is incorrect. In an article last year when this specific kerfuffle was raised, it was pointed out in the comments section that many country TLDs have policies that require registrations to be either by citizens of or business directed to that country. And they have policies of removing registered domains if the relevance requirement (citizenship of or business directed to) is breached or no longer applicable.

Now, while it is a bastard act to change the existing policy to this new one, the terms of the newer policy are in no ways unique or unusual or do they go against worldwide standard domain industry practice.

I'd say that the standard industry practice is to allow TLD registrars to determine their own policies around eligibility criteria for registering domains in that TLD, including but not limited to nationality criteria.

Re: industry practice?

Re: industry practice?

of or business directed to that country

And yet that is precisely what the EU is now attempting to block, non-EU countries directing their business to the EU. People accuse Trump of being protectionist, but he can't hold a candle to Brussels.

Re: industry practice?

Standard industry practise on running t'internet has tended to be to leave things as they are in as much as that's possible when something is later changed.

And if that isn't possible or desireable, then to have long transition periods - and try to minimise disruption.

Clearly nobody had any expectation of a country leaving the EU, so there aren't any policies in place to deal with it in almost any area. But that left the .eu domain with a few choices. They could:

a) Just let exisiting domain holders keep their domains - but not allow new ones to register.

b) Turn a blind eye to the whole issue. Did they really do any checks in the past? Certiainly when my company have been offered .eu domains by registrars there haven't been any extra checks mentioned over-and-above "can you pay".

c) Have a year or so of transition period - or force complying with the rules when the domain expires.

d) Put in place some kind of hybrid a and c - given that they're potentially losing 10% of their registered domains in one go.

d) Allow existing domain owners to pay a one-off fee to block future use of that domain - but to lose control of it themselves. As the dot.xxx registrar lets you do.

e) Take the extreme approach and nuke all domains from day 1 of Brexit.

That last is pretty unusual. It's not as if the .eu domain is like the proposed .bank one - where they were going to make proper checks that domain owners were real, regulated banks. I doubt any effort has been put into making sure nasty foreigners wreren't registering .eu domains before all this kerfuffle.

Which makes this look like a deliberate political choice in order to cause as much disruption as possible. The fact that it's in such a minor area - and there are unlikely to be many companies who do anything other than re-direct their dot.eu to their main site - just makes it look more petty and pathetic. But seemingly that's the policy path the Commission has tried to pursue, when possible. They're not sticking to internet governance norms, but it's not in an important area and the Commision have been delegated the authority to control this domain by ICANN - so they can't really complain about them using it as they see fit.

Re: industry practice?

@I ain't Spartacus

b) Turn a blind eye to the whole issue. Did they really do any checks in the past? Certiainly when my company have been offered .eu domains by registrars there haven't been any extra checks mentioned over-and-above "can you pay".

No they didn't do any checks in the past, hence why everyone is talking about this change in policy. Therefore of course they didn't do checks that weren't previously required by the policy at that time. Policies change.

c) Have a year or so of transition period - or force complying with the rules when the domain expires.

The transition period began on the announcement of this new policy, not on the 29 March 2019 brexit date. The brexit date is the drop-dead date to have completed the transition, Therefore non-EU holders - and those who know they won't be in the EU as of March 2019 - of .eu domains will have had in excess of 6 months to transition.

d) Put in place some kind of hybrid a and c - given that they're potentially losing 10% of their registered domains in one go.

If by 'they' you mean the .eu registry and the EU, what's that got to do with anything? That is an impact on them, and if they choose to eat that impact and find a 10% loss acceptable, why would anyone else but them care?

e) Take the extreme approach and nuke all domains from day 1 of Brexit.

Same response as to point c above, by brexit any holders would have had 6 months+ to transition their domains.

Which makes this look like a deliberate political choice in order to cause as much disruption as possible. The fact that it's in such a minor area - and there are unlikely to be many companies who do anything other than re-direct their dot.eu to their main site - just makes it look more petty and pathetic.

You seem to be putting politics into this, trying to put the worst possible light on this situation to make the commission look as bad as possible, that seems petty to me.

How about this scenario: The commission weren't even aware, because it was always below their notice, of the existing policy. This whole brexit situation brought to their attention something they were never consciously aware of at high levels - obviously lower-level functionaries would have been aware to enable it in the first place. Therefore in becoming aware, they decided that as several other country TLDs have citizenship and similar limitations, that that is what .eu should have, and maybe they assumed always did have, if they had even considered it at all previously. So now that they are aware of the situation, they have changed it to what they think it should be and perhaps what they previously assumed it was.

And as it is their (the EU's) mandate to do what is best for the EU, irrespective of what is best for the UK, the impact on the UK was not considered relevant - whether good or bad - in their decision making. They have none, zero, responsibility to consider what is good for the UK in their decision making.

Now, I also admit that I am playing devil's advocate and trying to put a reasonable spin on the situation. But unless you have a privileged position where you have been involved in or overheard or seen minutes of the internal EU strategy meetings then neither you or I know the actual motivations, the actual thought processes involved. And until any such revelations occur (does the EU release documents after X number of years?) I will consider any actions in reasonable lights, not assume the worst motivations - deliberately trying to screw over the UK - as opposed to not caring about the UK and just considering the EUs - as is their mandate - position.

The UK is voluntarily leaving the EU. Therefore the UK is not entitled to any benefits of being in the EU, and as such the EU is transitioning the UK to be just another non-EU country. The UK is not entitled to be treated in any other way than as 'just another non-EU country'. The UK is not entitled to any different treatment - until new treaties are passed anyway - than the US, or Canada, or Mexico, or Brazil, or Saudi Arabia, or DRC, or Chad, or Japan, or Kazakhstan, or Russia, or China, or India, or anyone else. The only people who expect the UK are entitled to retain a privileged position with respect to the EU is the UK. Well I'm sorry, but the UK has zero entitlements to be treated as anything else than a random foreign country.

Re: industry practice?

"while it is a bastard act to change the existing policy to this new one"

Hasn't it always been the case that .eu domains have to have a connection to the EU? It's not a general open tld like .com.

If that's the case, the policy isn't so much changing as being enforced against those who will soon cease to be EU citizens in an EU country.

In other words, just like Galileo, there are things that EU member states get to do, and there are things that non members can't do. Britain is changing position (not the EU), and the rights are changing to reflect this new situation.

@anon: This is what it looks like outside the EU.

No, this is what it currently looks like when the EU commission engages in political blackmail, displaying all the ethics of a mafia. Of course this whole thing is designed to scare the British public into a second vote. Where they are expected to vote the way the political class expects them to do.

Re: @anon: This is what it looks like outside the EU.

I have to agree more with Walter Bishop on this one. The EU could simply say that they won't renew .eu domains for UK residents once Brexit happens. They could say that they appreciate that the people who have .eu domains are current EU citizens and put measures in place to grandfather these domains as a token of goodwill to people who are probably backers of the EU.

But instead they are saying they will rather aggressively and proactively shut down these domains once Britain leaves the EU (assuming that things go as currently expected). That seems pretty petulant and zero-sum to me.

Re: @anon: This is what it looks like outside the EU.

The issue is simple: once UK is outside EU, how could EU ensure UK follows EU rules? Domains are no different - if someone pose as a EU company or any other entity through a .eu domain, once UK is outside EU suing them could become a issue. So it's logical domains are revoked.

Re: @anon: This is what it looks like outside the EU.

> That seems pretty petulant and zero-sum to me.

That's Brexit for you!

The Brexiteers who went on and on about how the UK owed the EU zero etc. etc. were being very very petulant and childish.

Brexit means heads the EU wins, tails the UK losses, the ardent Brexiteers don't see reality, just like those who couldn't see the emperor wasn't wearing any clothes. This isn't to say that all is good with the EU, just an acceptance of reality and the way our economy is now structured.

Re: @anon: This is what it looks like outside the EU.

you could argue they do it out of spite (and I do think there's an elemend of schadenfreunde), but you could also argue that, if they were lenient, and positive (yeah, keep those eu domains), they would be accused (but of course) by the brexiteers of meddling in internal UK politics, trying to swing people's mood, etc, etc. They can't win, whatever you do, the people will turn your actions (or non-actions) against you. And yes, I do believe that brexiteers are much more happy to throw shit around than the other lot.

Re: @anon: This is what it looks like outside the EU.

what?

From the article - "Dot-EU domains cannot be bought or renewed after Brexit by organizations nor people located outside the union, which means UK-based folks will be unable to hold onto their .eu domains."

Note the language - cannot be "bought or renewed". So, when the registration period is up, renewal will not be offered by the existing rules of the domain. Defunct registries will be actively removed, which is not exactly unusual.

Seriously, folks, what have you lot been putting in the water over there. You're not reading the Sun or the Daily Mail

Re: @anon: This is what it looks like outside the EU.

Close, but it's not designed to scare us into a second vote. It's designed to scare other members away from having the same vote.

The thing that scares the EU more than anything else is the thought that they might become irrelevant, such as if the most powerful countries in the union all split off. They will do everything they can to prevent that from happening.

Re: @anon: This is what it looks like outside the EU.

"The EU" is a group of member states, joined together by rules that they decide between them for the benefit of them all. The rules are everything.

Yes, the group of EU countries wants to stay a group, because of the many benefits the grouping brings. But that isn't the same as something called "The EU" that merely exists to have power.

Which is why Germany and France have not rushed to help the UK get a good deal at the expense of the EU: those countries think that remaining as EU member states is more important to their economies and citizens than supporting the UK in leaving the group.

Re: Ahhh BREXIT

Dot-EU domains cannot be bought or renewed outside the union?

“In this first step the Registrant must verify whether it meets the General Eligibility Criteria, whereby it must be: (i) an undertaking having its registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the European Union, Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein” ref

In regards to domain names, why not give the UK the same rights as Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein, but that's not what this is really about, which is to punish the UK and serve as a deterrent for anyone else having the temerity to go its own way and say sayonara to the European Project.

Re: Dot-EU domains cannot be bought or renewed outside the union?

But May rejected EEA membership,

The eea rejected Britain joining so that idea is moot from the start. To put it bluntly, the chance of Britain joining any trade block after Brexit is nil. The rest of the world has been watching how Britain has tried to exempt itself from every regulatory requirement in the EU for the last 30+ years. It asked for special treatment every time it could. Rebate, ids, shengen, cap, endless back and forth on privacy, surveillance laws, etc. It will all be remembered the same way norway remembered it and went into straight "no f*cking way" mode on eea.

Brexit just gets better?

It's amusing watching the many ways the Remoaners keep coming up with doomsday senarios. In todays Independent for instance, Brexit will cause a third world doctor and nurse shortage refrefrefrefref. Explain like I'm five, how non-EU countries manage to import-export to and from the EU and how, post-Brexit, the United kingdom of GB and parts of N.I will be unable to do the same?

Re: Brexit just gets better?

This is a chocolate orange in Dublin.

They grow cocoa in Ireland?

Look at the whole picture, what taxes were paid to import that chocolate to Dublin from outside the EU? Where was the metal for the foil mined, and where was the cardboard made? Then recalculate the whole thing on a non-EU basis, without any double-dutch-irish-sandwich tax trickery. It's far from your simplistic "EU good, non-EU bad" theory.

Re: Brexit just gets better?

@Phil O'Sophical

I'll assume you're now being deliberately obtuse just for the sheer bloody minded stubbornness of it.

Everything entering and leaving the UK will now be subject to WTO rules on trade. That means duty to be paid at either end. On everything. So straight away everything we buy is more expensive, and everything we sell is more expensive.

Now there are options here, we could unilaterally drop all import tariffs and quotas. That wouldn't help much though as that just makes the UK the dumping ground of every cheap manufacturing country in the world. You can't say "well let's drop tariffs just for goods from the EU" due to most favoured nation status, you drop a tariff for one country you drop them for all, unless you've negotiated a trade deal with them that grants you most favoured nation status. And this cuts both ways, without that deal no other country can drop their tariffs without dropping them for every country.

So let's look at an industry where we both import and export. Cars.

The EU is without doubt our biggest buyer of British made cars. WTO rules state duty on imports of cars is 10%. Because of this every car sold in the EU overnight becomes 10% more expensive. However, most of the components that go into making a car come from the EU. These will need to have duty paid on them, so that gets added to our 10% as well.

This could be offset by producing more components in the UK, but it's actually more expensive to make them here, which is why they get made abroad in the first place.

So say you're BMW, with proven manufacturing capabilities elsewhere in the EU, what are you going to do? If I was them I'd start ramping up capabilities in Poland, it gets around the issues of import duty and will also put money into Poland's economy while simultaneously lowering the cost of production given the cheaper manufacturing costs in Eastern Europe. It's an easy win.

Now look at the other side of this coin. We're a large part of the EU's trade, a significant amount of the cars made in the EU are also sold in the UK. But due to WTO there's still that 10% duty to pay. Now the UK government isn't going to be too bothered about this, it is after all just an import tax and so will go to the Treasury. But all of a sudden every car that's imported becomes 10% more expensive to the consumer. BMW doesn't care that you now have to pay more, after all you're just paying the same as before to their bottom line, it's not their fault you now pay the same price that the USA have to pay for an EU produced car.

So taking just car manufacturing you've lowered your GDP and increased inflation overnight. This is generally seen as a Very Bad Thing.

Of course you could keep manufacturing here in the UK. You just need to break the £ by enough that even with 10% import duty the car made here is cheaper than the one made in the EU. But that will mean everything else that's imported is more expensive, which will increase inflation and lower GDP. Which as we've seen above is generally seen as a Very Bad Thing.

Now multiply that across every industry that is reliant on import or export.

This is why a Deal is so important. Without it we lose access not just to the EU on Free Trade terms, but also to every single other country that has a deal with the EU. We lose access to Canada, Japan, European countries that aren't part of the EU but are part of the EEA. None of these countries will be allowed to unilaterally trade with the UK.

Sure we can sign a deal with the USA. But at what price? They've already stated that in order to have a deal we have to give them our food standards, renegotiate drug prices for the NHS, and give them full access to every government project going, including the NHS. We are NOT in a good negotiating position. Especially when it's countries like Moldova that are holding the knife to our throat.

Re: Brexit just gets better?

This is why a Deal is so important.

Of course a deal is important, to both the UK and the EU, if it's a good deal with reasonable compromise on both sides. Your discussion above is a little ingenuous, not least because tariffs on imports to the UK will of course hit companies like BMW, Audi, Mercedes, etc. through a drop in sales. It's in everyone's interests to negotiate low tariffs in both directions, and that is, after all, the main purpose of the WTO. Also note that imported components which are later re-exported in finished products will likely not be subject to tariffs, which further changes the calculations.

The chances of the EU agreeing to such a deal pre-Brexit are fairly close to zero, though, because that would mean them trying to make Brexit work in good faith, and that's politically very difficult for any EU politician. This is why we've got Theresa May's appalling sell-out deal, it's all the EU could ever offer.

After the Brexit dust settles, when all these negotiations go back to being shady negotiations between civil servants in back rooms, and not on the 6-o'clock news every night, I'm sure many workable deals will be done that will save face on both sides. That's what politicians are best at, especially when lobbied by industry.

In the absence of (an impossible) fair deal up front, it's far better to have a clean no-deal Brexit with full freedom for post-exit negotiations than to accept a bad deal for the UK which the EU will then simply refuse to change in any way.

Re: Brexit just gets better?

>Your discussion above is a little ingenuous, not least because tariffs on imports to the UK will of course hit companies like BMW, Audi, Mercedes, etc. through a drop in sales

Problem with this argument is that we already happily pay more for new cars in the UK than in Germany (UK specifications are contrived for this reason).

Similarly, ask a Brit what they are paying for a new car and you'll get a monthly figure, absent deposit or trade-in - ask a German and you'll get the actual price of the car, regardless of the payment plan. Even a 20% tariff would disappear because UK customers are happy to be mugged.

Re: Brexit just gets better?

It's not that we won't be able to do that, it's that we won't be able to do it at the same commercially advantageous terms that we have now for trading within and without of the EU.

We're a net importer of just about everything. We have no bargaining chips on our own as we don't have anything anyone wants in return - no coal, steel, oil, etc. Our largest single private sector - banking - is the size it is precisely because it's in the unique position of being in the EU but not having to play by all the rules that the German or French markets have.

Despite what the Leave crowd seem to think, Britain is not a global power now. It hasn't been since the sun finally set on the Empire with the Suez crisis. There will be no return to the imperial past, no restoration of power, mainly because the world is now defined by trading clout. The only three players in that game are China, the US, and the EU.... and we're leaving the EU.

Once the dust has eventually settled from all this, we'll still be trading with everyone, but everything will be a lot more expensive. Everything... because even the things we produce domestically rely on imported goods or services to facilitate.

Re: Brexit just gets better? @Walter

In a news report a couple of weeks ago the head of the truckers association said that a UK business with 400 trucks would have to complete 7 million pieces of paperwork every week.

Pre-EU I used to deliver expensive (~£100,000) equipment to Holland. You needed a carnet, then at the port you stood in the rain outside five different porta-cabins to get the required stamps. The Dutch side had a warm modern building with showers and a coffee machine where all the paperwork was processed.

Re: Brexit just gets better? @Walter

>Tl:Dr It's going to be a disaster!

Yes, I find it notable that the UK governments plans are to increase the amount of lorry parking on this side of the North Sea in the expectation that it will take longer for goods to be processed by UK customs, rather than ramp up the UK side to increase both customs capacity and transfer capacity so that goods from the UK can be moved into the EU at the same rate as today.

I suspect that the UK government knows that UK exports to the EU will rapidly decline or even fall off the cliff post-Brexit and so the queues of lorries carrying goods to the EU will only be a temporary thing.

The fact that leading Brexiteers haven't said very much, indicates they agree with the government's thinking...

Re: Brexit just gets better? @Walter

The fact that leading Brexiteers haven't said very much, indicates they agree with the government's thinking...

Or perhaps that they prefer to believe the CEO of the UK Major Ports Group, Tim Morris, who has said publicly that the fuss about no-deal gridlock is overblown hype and that, outside of some possible delays at Dover, the UK ports are well able to cope with Brexit.

Re: Brexit just gets better? @Walter

>Or perhaps that they prefer to believe the CEO of the UK Major Ports Group, Tim Morris, who has said publicly that the fuss about no-deal gridlock is overblown hype and that, outside of some possible delays at Dover, the UK ports are well able to cope with Brexit.

A report has been leaked today that was completed by UCL for the DfT. Up to a 40 second custom inspection on each lorry would be as now. After that it increased exponentially...

A 70 second delay would take 6 days to clear the queues. Above 80 seconds and the phrase used was "No Recovery".

Re: Brexit just gets better?

>Explain like I'm five, how non-EU countries manage to import-export to and from the EU

Currently the UK is inside the EU and has over 30'ish years evolved accordingly, non-EU countries have likewise evolved over the same period of time to handle their position outside of the EU. The problem is moving the UK from being inside to effectively working outside - the transition is likely to be traumatic, particularly as those who we might wish to turn to for rehabilitation assistance are only really concerned about their own self-interest...

So whilst it is possible for the UK to ultimately be able to stand on its own two feet and trade with the EU, I suggest considering the potential timeframe being talked about even by leading Brexiteers - namely the entire working life of those due to leave school this year, there are better alternatives to be had.

Re: I have a .ES domain

>I've so far received no notification that I have to surrender this

Anyone can register .es. The EU trademark and .eu TLD is specific to European Union (and EEA) members it's not a geographical label or term - there are 20 European countries that can't use the .eu TLD currently.

Re: I have a .ES domain

There's a risk UK entities may lose other domain names registered in EU TLDs - some have explicit rules that registrations are permitted to citizens, residents or companies having a location in the EEA, unless other agreements exist (i.e. usually Switzerland has one).

Hard Brexit supporters have underestimated a bit too much how UK was intertwined with EU....

So should nominet

Re: So should nominet

Nominet can change its actual rules - and ask for example that you need to be a Commonwealth citizen to register a .uk domain - but there is a difference. If you entered a contract in which you were required to be part, for example, of the EEA to enter into it, and then you leave the EEA, it's not the same if you modify the contract rules later.

Re: So should nominet

> If you entered a contract in which you were required to be part, for example, of the EEA to enter into it, and then you leave the EEA, it's not the same if you modify the contract rules later.

Is this legal advice? I just ask since all I learned was that conditions to enter were never the same as the conditions for being kicked out unless clear statements were made to that effect. Indubitably membership was required to get a .eu domain. That certainly does not automatically mean leaving means all domains will lapse. This would go against all principles of legal certainty.

Re: So should nominet

> I just ask since all I learned was that conditions to enter were never the same as the conditions for being kicked out unless clear statements were made to that effect.

You need to look at the termination and renewal clauses. I suspect, like mobile phone contracts each contracted for period is a new standalone contract; renewal only really allows you to retain/transfer the phone number to the new contract and gain 'loyalty' bonus'es (eg. pay more for the same contract than a 'new' customer).

EU will be actively undercutting its own revenues

I very much doubt that. I bet those defund domains will fetch a high asking price, and they'll be re-purchased, possibly in bulk by those anonymous hoarders, to sell them on later. Brexit for some profit for others! :/

Re: EU will be actively undercutting its own revenues

Surely the bigger worry is not the loss of the .eu domains but the fact that they could be snapped up by potentially dodgy organisations within the EU and then used to impersonate UK organisations? I also wonder if redirection to a non .eu domain will be allowed for a certain time or whether the cut-off will be absolute?

Surely most organisations register a domain in their own country PLUS an .eu one? I agree it would be rather foolish to only have an .eu domain....... but then that's always been the case, whether a country might leave the EU or not.

The EU is concerned with competitive issues, especially comparisons to the US. In the US you just need .com, not .ca.us plus .com. The .eu was in parts meant to solve the same issue. Trouble is, now you have domain squatter problems and this mass revocation is obviously going to cause similar problem for UK companies.

Re: Simple solution: e-residency

"I hate to think what else it has committed you to but I guess any business now done in the EU is taxed in Estonia."

Gosh yes, that would be terrible. Having to pay a flat rate (proportional, not "progressive") tax rate of 20% with no higher rate tax, no Corporation Tax, no withholding tax. How do those poor Estonian's manage, eh? Oh, by being wealthy, happy, most digitally switched-on in Europe with universal free education, free healthcare and the best maternity leave in Europe. And they are full-fledged members of the Euro. Life must be hell.

Border farce!

The government bleat on about our border while cutting back on the people who protect it. In one CG station that I know of the staff turnover is high because they are expected to work 12 hour shifts for not a lot of money. So then a new person is appointed who does not have the experience to deal with emergencies, disasters or just about anything else. For example, they will ask for the launch a lifeboat that is further away from a casualty than a nearer one.

Ultimately the government would like to shut all but one of the coastguard stations. So if your yacht is in trouble on the west coast of Scotland you'll be talking to someone in Dover who has no local knowledge of that area. In short, you'll be lucky to be rescued.

A few years ago the police started Operation Kraken <insert ominous music here> where the public are asked to report suspicious behaviour on the coast. Another cost cutting exercise perhaps? Get something for free rather than pay people to protect our border. Call me a cynic.

Non Issue

Reading through all the tears the author cried writing the article, this is a non issue. What UK company thought it would be a good idea to only have a .eu web presence, if there are any they should be shut down post brexit as they are too stupid to run a company...

Re: Non Issue

Not to mention no tears were shed for the remaining credibility of the .EU TLD. If your fellow countrymen vote to leave, you lose your domain. That's the end of anybody sensible anywhere in Europe using .EU as their primary domain.

EU accounts have always been audited, Commission independence is a safeguard

The accounts of the EU, and its predecessors, have always been audited. By the independent European Court of Auditors. The oldest report available online is for 1977. In 1977, errors were found. And put right.

The accounts of the EU have been 'signed off' every year since 2007. The Court audits the European Commission's accounting service, and all other recipients of EU funding.

Why does only the European Commission have the "power of initiation"? To formally start the process of making or changing EU law? Because it is a safeguard. To make sure that what is proposed is within the terms and spirit of the treaties. And generally in the interests of all the member countries as a whole.

There is plenty of discussion first. After a proposal, it can be changed by government ministers. The Council of the EU. And in most cases, changed by the directly elected European Parliament. For most things, both houses have to agree.

For most things, at least 16 out of 28 countries need to be in favour. Representing 65% of the total population. Sometimes a higher threshold is needed, or unanimous. In most cases a majority of the European Parliament is needed as well.

Re: EU accounts have always been audited, Commission independence is a safeguard

Auditors say the accounts have been accurate since 2007. But they have historically recorded significant errors in how money is paid since their first audit in 1995. In the most recent year, they found a significant part of the EU’s spending was largely error-free for the first time.